Legal Opinion

Badeen v. PAR, Inc.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided April 11, 2013No. Docket No. 302878PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilder, J.

On appeal, plaintiffs argue that (1) the trial court erred when it struck plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, (2) the trial court erred when it denied plaintiffs’ motion to reinstate the class action *434allegations, and (3) the trial court erred when it granted summary disposition in favor of defendants. We affirm.

This case involves “forwarding companies” that contract with lending institutions to handle the collection services on delinquent accounts. After contracting with the lending institutions, these forwarding companies would in turn retain licensed repossession agents to carry out…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Robinson v. City of LansingMichigan Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Kevin Krohn v. Home-Owners Ins CoMichigan Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Hill v. City of WarrenMichigan Court of Appeals · 2007
  4. Grzesick v. CepelaMichigan Court of Appeals · 2000
  5. Coalition for a Safer Detroit v. Detroit City ClerkMichigan Court of Appeals · 2012

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Badeen v. Par, IncMichigan Supreme Court · 2014
  2. Ladd v. Motor City Plastics Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2013
  3. Hanton v. Hantz Financial Services, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2014
  4. Allison Barkley v. City of SouthfieldMichigan Court of Appeals · 2026

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API